coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1966 respectively and live in the village of Stryama.
5.  On different dates in 1991 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants and four other persons. The applicants were charged with the theft of a car tyre. An indictment against them was introduced at court on 29 June 1992.
6.  On 3 December 1992 the Plovdiv Regional Court remitted the case to the investigation authorities finding that there had been procedural violations.
7.  No investigative measures were taken until September 1998 when one of the accused was questioned. In the following months the remaining accused were also questioned and other evidence was collected.
8.  On several occasions during these months a prosecutor from the Plovdiv regional prosecutor’s office instructed the investigation authorities to take further investigative measures and make up for certain earlier breaches of the procedural rules.
9.  On an unspecified date towards the end of 1999 the investigation was completed. The prosecution filed an indictment with the Plovdiv Regional Court and the applicants were brought to trial.
10.  In a judgment of 24 June 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Court acquitted the applicants. One of the remaining accused was also acquitted and the others were convicted and received suspended sentences.
11.  Upon appeal by the prosecution, on 8 October 2004 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal upheld fully the Regional Court’s judgment. In affirming the suspended sentences of three of the accused, it referred, inter alia, to the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that
“the criminal proceedings [had been] subject to excessive delays without there having been an objective justification for that delay ”.
12.  Upon cassation appeal by the prosecution, on 1 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts’ judgments and reiterated the Court of Appeal’s findings in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.
4. On 10 May 1995 the applicant was dismissed by his employer for work-related irregularities.
5.  On 16 June 1995 the applicant claimed annulment of his dismissal and his reinstatement.
6.  On 15 February 1996 the Delčevo Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) annulled the dismissal decision and ordered the employer to reinstate the applicant to a post commensurate to his qualifications. On 19 September 1996 the Štip Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
7.  On 11 November 1996 the first-instance court terminated the proceedings because insolvency proceedings had been launched against the employer on 24 April 1996.
8.  On 19 November 1996 the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings for a number of reasons, including the fact that the employer's receiver (стечаен управник) appointed in the insolvency proceedings had not requested termination of his proceedings.
9.  On 13 January 1997 the first-instance court declared itself incompetent to decide the applicant's case and transferred it to the Kočani Court of First Instance.
10.  On 7 November 1997 the Kočani Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's claim relying on the latter's criminal conviction of 19 July 1995 for work-related offences. On 10 February 1998 the Štip Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision.
11.  On 29 December 1998 the Kočani Court of First Instance stayed the insolvency proceedings in respect of the employer and noted that they had no bearing on dismissal decisions.
12.  On 2 December 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant's appeal on points of law (ревизија) and quashed the lower courts' decisions of 7 November 1997 and 10 February 1998.
13.  On 22 March 2000 the Kočani Court of First Instance declared itself incompetent ratione loci to decide the applicant's case.
14.  On 22 December 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the employer's request that the first-instance court be declared incompetent to deal with the applicant's case.
15.  On 17 April 2001 the first-instance court annulled the dismissal decision and dismissed the applicant's claim for his reinstatement finding that the employer's insolvency had entailed ipso jure termination of all employment agreements, including the applicant's. This decision was upheld by the Štip Court of Appeal's and the Supreme Court's decisions of 27 December 2001 and 7 May 2003, respectively. This latter decision was served on the applicant on 9 July 2003.
16.  On 28 July 2003 the applicant brought a civil action against the employer claiming employment emoluments (надомест на штета од работен однос). His claim referred to compensation for unpaid salary and an allowance for provisional unemployment that he should have received from the State Employment Bureau (Биро за вработување) pending the employer's insolvency proceedings.
17.  On 1 March 2004 the first-instance court ruled partly in favour of the applicant. This decision became final on 5 April 2004.
4.  The applicant, who is a Croatian national was born in 1957 and lives in Zadar, Croatia.
5.  On 16 July 1996 the applicant brought a civil action against the company Z. in the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) challenging her dismissal from work and seeking salary arrears.
6.  The court held six hearings and on 10 October 1997 dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.
7.  On 15 March 2000 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the court of first instance.
8.  In the resumed proceedings, the Zadar Municipal Court held six hearings and on 16 April 2003 stayed the proceedings (prekid postupka) because the bankruptcy proceedings had meanwhile been opened against the defendant.
9.  On 14 July 2003 the Municipal Court found that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter because of the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings and transferred the case to the Zadar Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Zadru). The Commercial Court held three hearings and on 1 June 2004 adopted a judgment. The applicant appealed to the High Commercial Court (Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske).
10.  On 3 May 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).
11.  On 12 September 2006 the High Commercial Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. In the resumed proceedings the Zadar Commercial Court gave its judgment on 6 February 2007 against which both parties appealed to the High Commercial Court.
12.  On 6 March 2007 the Supreme Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time and attributed delays in the proceedings to the inefficiency of the Zadar Municipal Court and the High Commercial Court. It awarded the applicant 15,000 Croatian kuna in compensation and ordered the High Commercial Court to give a decision in the applicant's case within one month following the service of its decision. The Supreme Court's decision was served on the High Commercial Court on 2 July 2007, although the latter already gave its decision in that case (see § 11 above).
13.  On 26 September 2007 the High Commercial Court quashed the first-instance judgment of 6 February 2007 and remitted the case. On 22 January 2009 the Zadar Commercial Court gave its judgment against which both parties appealed to the High Commercial Court.
14.  On 7 October 2009 the High Commercial Court upheld the first instance judgment in part and in the remaining part quashed and remitted to the Zadar Commercial Court before which the proceedings are currently pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is at present detained in Bobov dol Prison.
6.  Criminal proceedings for murder were opened against him on 11 January 2000. They continued until 27 November 2003 when he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by means of a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation.
7.  From 8 March 2000 to 5 November 2008 the applicant was detained in Lovech Prison, initially being held there in pre-trial detention and after 27 November 2003 as a prisoner serving a life imprisonment sentence. On 5 November 2008 he was transferred to Bobov dol Prison.
8.  On 4 August 2003 the applicant received a letter dated 1 August 2003 from the lawyer representing him in the criminal proceedings. The letter concerned the possible outcome of the proceedings and the strategy of the defence. The envelope had been opened and bore the signature of an official of the prison administration.
9.  After the conclusion of the domestic proceedings, between 12 January and 13 April 2004 the applicant received two more letters from the same lawyer and two letters from another lawyer. All four envelopes had been opened and bore the signatures of officials of the prison administration.
10.  On 10 December 2003 the applicant received a letter from the Registry of the Court, dated 2 December 2003 and concerning his application in the present case. The envelope had been opened and bore the signature of an official of the prison administration.
11.  On 5 February and 16 April 2004 the applicant complained to the prison administration of the practice of opening and reading his letters. In reply, he was informed that the monitoring of detainees' and prisoners' correspondence was envisaged by section 33 of the Execution of Punishments Act, that it concerned all inmates and that it pursued “security-related” and “educational” aims.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Krasnystaw.
5.  On 28 October 2005 the applicant was detained on remand by the decision of the Puławy District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
6.  The pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by the domestic courts.
7.  During the detention the applicant served two prison sentences (of ten and four months respectively), ordered in different sets of criminal proceedings against him.
8.  On 6 March 2007 the Puławy District Court convicted the applicant of numerous counts of robbery and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.
9.  On 27 September 2007 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the judgment of the District Court.
10.  On 21 November 2007 the applicant's legal-aid counsel found no grounds for lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
11.  While detained in the course of the above-mentioned proceedings, the applicant's correspondence was censored on several occasions.
12.  All envelopes produced by the applicant bear a stamp that reads: “The Puławy District Court, Censored, date ...” (Sąd Rejonowy w Puławach, Ocenzurowano, dnia...) and an illegible signature. Those envelopes contained the following:
a) one letter from the Lublin Oncological Centre (sent on 3 March 2006 and stamped on 15 March 2006);
b) one letter from a hospital in Lublin (sent on 10 March 2006 and stamped on 20 March 2006);
c) two letters from a sheltered-work factory (the first letter sent on 7 March 2006 and stamped on 20 March 2006; the second letter sent on 11 April 2006 and stamped on 24 April 2006);
d) one letter from a bank in Poniatowa (sent on 5 September 2006 and stamped on 18 September 2006);
e) one letter from the Opole Lubelskie District Employment Office (Powiatowy Urząd Pracy) (sent on 31 March 2006 and stamped on 11 April 2006);
f) three letters from the Lublin Municipal Disability Evaluation Board (Miejski Zespół do Spraw Orzekania o Niepełnosprawności) (the first letter sent on 27 February 2006 and stamped on 6 March 2006; the second letter sent on 26 January 2007 and stamped on 1 February 2007; the third letter sent on 8 March 2007 and stamped on 15 March 2007);
g) one letter from the ING Bank (sent on 10 May 2007 and stamped on 22 May 2007);
h) three letters from the Lublin Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) (the first letter sent on18 April 2006 and stamped on 10 May 2006; the second letter sent on 17 August 2006 and stamped on 24 August 2006; the third letter sent on 20 February 2007 and stamped on 1 March 2007).
5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Skopje.
6.  On 20 February 1994 the applicant, a minor at the time, was injured in a fight with Mr T.P. and Mr N.Z. (“the defendants”).
7. On 10 February 1995 an investigating judge discontinued the investigation after the public prosecutor had stayed the prosecution. On 20 February 1995 the applicant took over the prosecution as a subsidiary complainant. On 24 April 1997 the public prosecutor joined and took over the prosecution. Prior to that date, the trial court had set five hearings and obtained an expert opinion, according to which the applicant had sustained serious bodily injuries.
8. Thirteen hearings were rescheduled between 18 August 1997 and 11 December 1998 because of the absence of the defendants or the expert. On 11 June 1999 an alternative expert report was drawn up regarding the nature and severity of the injuries sustained by the applicant.
9. On 10 January 2000 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) found the defendants guilty of causing grievous bodily harm and sentenced them to a suspended prison term. It found that they had hit the applicant on the head, as a result of which he had sustained concussion (потрес на мозог). The court further advised the applicant, under section 101 of the Criminal Proceedings Act (see paragraph 22 below) to pursue a compensation claim which he had made in the course of the proceedings by means of a separate civil action before the civil courts. It was noted that this latter claim had not been specified.
10. On 6 July 2000 the Skopje Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeals and quashed the trial court's decision.
11. On 12 February 2002 the Forensic Institute submitted to the court another expert opinion which stated that the applicant had sustained concussion, a serious injury.
12. On 19 November 2002 the trial court convicted the defendants again and sentenced them to a suspended prison term. It reiterated its earlier decision as regards the applicant's claim for reparation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss related to the injury, namely, that he should pursue it in separate civil proceedings.
13. At a public hearing held on 10 July 2003, the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
14. On 18 March 2004 the trial court discontinued the proceedings because the prosecution had become time-barred. It further advised the applicant that he could claim compensation by means of a separate civil action before the civil courts. No appeal having been submitted, this decision became final on 14 May 2004.
15. During the proceedings, the applicant complained to many State institutions about the way the proceedings in question had been conducted.
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Berdsk, a town in the Novosibirsk Region.
6.  The applicant is a public prosecutor.
7.  On an unspecified date in early 2003 he applied for a free housing provided by law for this category of state officials.
8.  By judgment of 21 April 2003 the Tsentralny District Court of Novosibirsk ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the local and regional authorities jointly
“...to provide [the applicant] with a flat in a State or municipal housing for a family of four people with a living surface measuring 36 sq. metres, and taking into account the applicant's right to an additional living area of not less than 20 sq. metres or in the form of a separate room...”
9.  Upon the respondent's appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Novosibirsk Regional Court on appeal on 17 June 2003. On that day the judgment became binding.
10.  The respondents did not enforce the judgment immediately. On 28 and 30 July 2003, the Bailiff's Office (“the bailiffs”) initiated enforcement proceedings.
11.  According to the Government, the Novosibirsk Regional Administration was unable to execute the judgment as, pursuant to Decree of 27 December 1991, the property rights in respect of all State housing in the Novosibirsk Region had been transferred to municipal authorities.
12.  On 20 April 2004 the Tsentralny District Court of Novosibirsk rejected the authorities' request to adjourn the execution of the final judgment.
13.  On 24 September 2004 and 19 November 2004 the same court rejected the applicant's requests to award him compensation which would allow him to purchase a flat.
14.  The prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the bailiff on 11 December 2004. On 19 January 2005, in response to the applicant's complaint, the Berdsk Town Court found the acts of the bailiff in the applicant's enforcement proceedings arbitrary and unlawful and ordered the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings in this respect. On 25 May 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court once again urged the prosecutor to open criminal proceedings.
15.  On 1 February 2006 the Berdsk Town Council sent a letter to the applicant, offering to provide him with a three-room flat of 77.5 sq. metres in total surface.
16.  By letter of 2 February 2006 the applicant sent a letter to the bailiffs in which he agreed to this offer.
17.  On 13 February 2006 the Novosibirsk Regional Administration allocated 1,500,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for acquisition of a flat for the applicant.
18.  By decision of 17 May 2006 the bailiffs terminated the proceedings in the case as the judgment of 21 April 2003, as upheld on 17 June 2003, had been enforced.
19.  According to the parties, the applicant was granted a three-room flat of 77.5 sq. metres in total surface under a social tenancy agreement.
6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Noginsk, a town in the Moscow Region.
7.  The applicant is a retired serviceman. He enlisted in 1980, and at the material time he was a captain of the Space Force, occupying on a contractual basis the post of a deputy director of social and political education.
8.  On 24 July 1998 the Noginsk Town Court ordered the command to grant the applicant an early discharge because of the command's failure to fulfil their obligations under the contract. On 4 August 1998 this judgment became binding but was not enforced immediately, and the applicant resubmitted his claim.
9.  On 21 June 2002 the 94th Garrison Military Court ordered the command to discharge the applicant for health reasons, to provide him with housing, and to pay 7,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages. On 24 July 2002 this judgment became binding in the part concerning the discharge and housing. The part concerning the damages was referred for a retrial.
10.  On 3 September 2002 the 94th Garrison Military Court ordered the command to pay RUB 23,817.60 in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 9 October 2002 this judgment became binding.
11.  On 9 June 2003 the applicant received the flat.
12.   On 27 June 2003 the applicant was discharged from service.
13.  On 26 April 2004 the applicant submitted enforcement papers in respect of the damages, and on 5 February 2005 he received the sum due.
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Kursk.
5.  On 4 November 1992 the Presidium of the Kursk Regional Council of People's Deputies issued the applicant with a certificate showing that he had participated in mine cleaning in the Kursk Region in 1943-1948.
6.  On 8 December 2000 the Kursk Social Security Office upon applicant's request exchanged the above certificate for a certificate of a war veteran. The new document made the applicant eligible for an increased pension.
7.  In March 2005 the Kursk Social Security Office asked the Kursk Military Commission to remove the applicant's status as a war veteran on the ground that the police had established forgery of the war-time document, in which the applicant's name was mentioned. In May 2005 the Social Security Office stopped paying the increased pension to the applicant and decided to withhold the amount which it had overpaid in the preceding period.
8.  The applicant challenged the discontinuation of payments as unlawful. The Social Security Office counterclaimed, seeking a court order for annulment of the veteran certificate. The Military Commission joined the proceedings as a co-defendant.
9.  On 20 April 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk found for the applicant. It determined that the allegedly forged document had not been the basis for granting the applicant the veteran status and could not be invoked as a ground for annulment of the certificate. The discontinuation of payments had been therefore unlawful.
10.  Neither the Social Security Office nor the Military Commission filed an ordinary appeal and the judgment became final and enforceable.
11.  In September 2006 the Military Commission lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 20 April 2006.
12.  On 15 November 2006 the Presidium of the Kursk Regional Court granted the application, quashed the contested judgment and remitted the matter for a new examination by the District Court. In so doing, it held that the District Court had gone beyond the scope of the claims since it had found that the veteran certificate had been lawfully issued to the applicant, whereas the Social Security Office had not raised that issue. It also found that the District Court had not examined the administrative decision to suspend the monthly payments to the applicant and had not indicated the statute regulating seizure of certificates in court proceedings.
13.  On 29 December 2006 the Leninskiy District Court issued a new judgment. On the applicant's claim, it held that the discontinuation of payments had been lawful, but awarded the applicant the amount outstanding and interest on it. The District Court also granted the Social Security Office's counterclaim and annulled the veteran certificate on the ground that he had failed to produce any documents showing that he had taken part in mine cleaning prior to 9 May 1945 (the official date of the end of the war).
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Viničné.
5.  On 30 September 1997 she lodged an action against a limited liability company with the Bratislava Regional Court. She requested that the decisions, which had been adopted at the general meeting of the company members held on 1 July 1997, be declared void.
6.  On 24 February 2004 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded her the equivalent of 985 euros (EUR) (at that time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the Regional Court to proceed without further delay and to reimburse the applicant's costs.
7.  On 2 September 2004 the civil proceedings were discontinued on the ground that the defendant company had been dissolved and wound up. In the absence of an appeal, the decision became final on 20 October 2004.
8.  On 18 January 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected a fresh complaint lodged on 6 December 2004 as being manifestly ill-founded (as to the length of proceedings) and for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (as to the alleged unfairness of the proceedings and interference with the applicant's property rights). The decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 5 May 2006.